- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
December 5, 2024Jake Holdreith Named to Twin Cities Business Top 100
-
December 4, 2024Robins Kaplan Obtains $10.5 Million Post-Verdict in Landmark Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
December 2024A Landmark Victory for Disabled Homeless Veterans: Q&A with the Trial Team
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Read our attorneys' take on the latest news and trends in the legal and business industries.
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
The Hatch-Waxman Litigation practice group at Robins Kaplan LLP is pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the generics business.
GENERICally Speaking Q2
Second Quarter test
The Second quarter issue of the GENERICally Speaking campaign provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation.
In this issue:
- Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
Hetlioz® (tasimelteon)
Appellate court affirms trial court’s invalidty ruling, holding that the trial court did not err in finding an expectation of success and that the claimed invention was “obvious to try.” - Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
Otezla® (apremilast)
Crediting expert testimony, the district court did not err in finding two of the asserted patents claiming solid forms and pharmaceutical compositions of apremilast not invalid as obvious, and a third asserted patent claim a method of treatment invalid as obvious. - UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc.
Neupro® (rotigotine)
The district court erred in its anticipation analysis as it related to prior art ranges, but did not err in its obviousness analysis, which was affirmed. - Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.
Jevtana® (cabazitaxel)
The trial court held the patent-in-suit infringed on the basis of the teaching of defendant’s label, and not invalid as obvious because a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in the prior art combination of record. - In re Sugammadex
Bridion® (sugammadex sodium)
Because the Patent Act requires a patent term extension of a reissued patent to be calculated based on the issue date of the original patent, the reissued patent’s five-year PTE term was not invalid. - Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
Myrbetriq® (mirabegron)
In defending against a claim of non-enablement, plaintiff concedes that the patent specification describes well known, routine, and conventional methods for the claimed invention thus rendering the claims invalid under Section 101. - Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd.
Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate)
The court found the patent-in-suit infringed, over Defendant’s divided infringement defense, and not invalid, in spite of Defendant’s obviousness and Section 112 defenses. - Azurity Pharms., Inc. v. Alkem Labs. Ltd.
Firvanq® (vancomycin)
Defendant’s ANDA product does not infringe the “flavoring agent” claim limitation in light of the preamble’s “consisting of” language and plaintiff’s disclaimer during patent prosecution. - Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Xspray Pharma AB
Sprycel®/Dasynoc® (dasatinib)
The court denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on conflicting assertions in the NDA where the NDA was not specifically relied on in amended complaint. - Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare Inc.
OxyContin® (oxycodone HCl)
Abuse deterrence and purity patents were invalid as obvious when routine experimentation and common sense would motivate a skilled artisan to combine certain prior art references and have an expectation of success in achieving the claimed limitations. - Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Nanocopoeia, LLC
Sprycel® (dasatinib)
Because Defendant’s NDA did not directly address the issue of infringement, thereby raising disputes of material fact, judgment on the pleadings was denied.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
Related Professionals
New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications
Reported settlements in federal district court cases
Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications
Federal district court cases that are filed pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act
Jevtana® (cabazitaxel)
Myrbetriq® (mirabegron)
Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate)
Bridion® (sugammadex sodium)
Hetlioz® (tasimelteon)
Firvanq® (vancomycin)
Sprycel®/Dasynoc® (dasatinib)
Otezla® (apremilast)
Neupro® (rotigotine)
OxyContin® (oxycodone HCl)
Sprycel® (dasatinib)
Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.